Legal Opinion

Duke v. Hogan

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1923No. 3510PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.

1. The use of the word “ plaintiff ” instead of the word “ defendant ” in the charge of the court, where the context plainly showed the use of the word was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as *361was not calculated to mislead the jury, will not necessitate a new trial. Hoxie v. State, 114 Ga. 19 (6) (39 S. E. 944), and citations; Berry v. Clark, 117 Ga. 964 (2) (44 S. E. 824); Southern Ry. Co. v. Merritt, 120 Ga. 409 (47 S. E. 908); Lothridge v. Varnadore, 140 Ga. 131 (2) (78 S. E. 721); L. & N. R. Co. v. Culpepper, 142 Ga. 275 (2) (82 S. E. 659), and citations; Loe v. Brown, 155 Ga. 24 (116…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hoxie v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  2. Southern Railway Co. v. MerrittSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Berry v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  4. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. CulpepperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
  5. Loe v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Neville v. National Life & Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
  2. Wardlaw v. WardlawCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  3. Mills v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  4. Adams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
  5. Duke v. HoganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API